H F Talukder v Amrit Indian Restaurant: 3305322/2024
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment.[1]The respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £200.[2]The unfair dismissal complaint was already dismissed (judgment sent to parties on 10 October 2024).[3]All other complaints, other than those mentioned in the first two paragraphs, are dismissed.[1]The Claimant worked for the Respondent for 3 days, 31 January, 1 February and 2 February 2024.[2]It had been agreed that he would work 30 hours per week and be paid £600 per week.[3]He was not entitled to statutory minimum notice, and I am not satisfied that there was a contractual agreement for a minimum notice period. Thus, when he was dismissed with immediate effect, on 2 February, that was not a breach of contract.[4]I am not satisfied that there was any agreement that he be reimbursed for expenses incurred (either for travel to work, or at all). Case No: 3305322/2024[5]The Claimant’s email of 7 August 2024 mentioned that he had been paid £100 and was owed £200. I infer from that that the agreement was for £100 per day, for approximately 5 hours per day, and 6 days per week. I award £200 for that reason.[6]No other losses, consequent on the non-payment / underpayment have been demonstrated. I do not award anything for alleged inconvenience or distress.